Re: N00b Question

From: josh (josh.reynolds_at_tstc.edu)
Date: 01/05/05

  • Next message: Steve: "Re: Employee new to industry" 
    To: security-basics@securityfocus.com
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2005 16:58:16 -0600

    There is a great product called packet shaper by packetteer. This device
    blocks traffic at the application level. If a user tries to use gnutella,
    AIM, iTunes, etc... on a different ports or IP's other that the standard
    ports and IP's this device will detect it. This device detects the
    signatures of these application's packets as they pass through this device.
    I work of a college and as you can imagen our students ate up our bandwidth
    with P2P apps, we purchased this device and saved a whole lot of bandwidth.
    I hope this helps.

    On Wednesday 05 January 2005 15:00, Scott Ladd wrote:
    > The method you mention has man flaws, namely, multiple hosts. AIM for
    > instance, uses multiple IP address and ports for connecting. You would
    > have to block an IP Range for that matter. Setting up a firewall is your
    > best bet in the end.
    >
    > -SL
    >
    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: Beauford, Jason [mailto:jbeauford@EightInOnePet.com]
    > Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 8:30 AM
    > To: security-basics@lists.securityfocus.com
    > Subject: RE: N00b Question
    >
    > No need to sit there and block ports. Just block access to the hosts
    > these services connect to.
    >
    > For instance I-Tunes: I-Tunes has built in Internet Radio which can
    > suck up my bandwidth. I use Websense to block HTTP and other ports.
    > However, I-Tunes uses a HUGE range of ports. Sure you can block all of
    > those ports, but it's just much easier to block the site from which
    > I-Tunes gathers it's XML list of Radio stations. Now the proggie just
    > errors out.
    >
    > MSN and Yahoo Chat all connect to some remote host. Install and fire up
    > Ethereal on your PC, Install these programs and sign in. Check your
    > Ethereal Logs and you'll easily be able to identify which hosts those
    > programs are connecting to.
    >
    > My $.02. Happy New Year All!
    >
    > JMB
    >
    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: G.Crow [mailto:secure.computing@gmail.com]
    > Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2004 10:33 PM
    > To: security-basics@lists.securityfocus.com
    > Subject: RE: N00b Question
    >
    >
    > For blocking certain sites your best bet is a proxy of some sort,
    > presumably transparent. Lots of people on this list will point you
    > towards Squid if you're looking in the open-source realm. You *could*
    > block site IPs in your firewalls (PIX firewalls are almost all, if not
    > all, in the 500-scheme. I haven't looked at the lineup recently.) That
    > is, however, not a great solution for a variety of reasons.
    >
    > If you are blocking the web-based email, why do you need to block the
    > ability to upload attachments?
    >
    > For MSN/yahoo chat you can block the ports in your external firewall.
    > This will stop 95% of your users (possibly more if MSN/yahoo don't
    > accept connections on any port like AIM does.) You can also see if your
    > infrastructure supports deep packet inspection - Cisco has a good
    > variety of capabilities regarding that, but I can't for the life of me
    > remember the acronym, and my Cisco books are in the office. I avoid it,
    > myself, since it punts packets to the processor, but that doesn't matter
    > as much with a slower external link.
    >
    > Quotas established for web surfing? Do you mean accounting per computer
    > (he's been on the web *this* much today) or do you actually mean cutting
    > it off after a certain point per day? Logging and log analysis is easy
    > enough, but true quotas would require authentication of some sort most
    > likely, and are probably more trouble then they're worth. If bandwidth
    > is an issue I would just implement QoS and put port 80/443 traffic in a
    > low CoS.
    >
    > Gabe
    >
    > > -----Original Message-----
    > > From: Harshal Dedhia [mailto:harshal.dedhia@skybird-travel.com]
    > > Sent: December 30, 2004 11:42 AM
    > > To: security-basics@securityfocus.com
    > > Subject: N00b Question
    > >
    > > Hi,
    > > I am very new to the firewall and network security world. I have a
    > > situation wherein I need to block webbased email access and the
    > > ability to upload attachments to web-based email. I also need to
    > > ensure that MSN/yahoo chat is disabled and quotas are established for
    > > web surfing.
    > >
    > > Is there an Open Source solution to this problem. The network
    > > comprises Cisco Routers and 500 series firewalls.
    > >
    > > Cheers!
    > > Harshal 

    -- 
Josh Reynolds
Network Manager
Texas State Technical College - Waco
1-254-867-3375
 
"This e-mail may contain the thoughts and opinions of Josh Reynolds and may 
not represent official Texas State Technical College Waco policy."

  • Next message: Steve: "Re: Employee new to industry"

    Relevant Pages

    • Re: how to block AIMEXPRESS in a domain
      ... I'd first want to block it using a firewall. ... the ports commonly used by AIM, but because it can also use TCP 80 and other ... Search www.google.com for something like "block aim ... is there anything in domain group policy? ...
      (microsoft.public.win2000.security)
    • Source Code to Filter out WindowsMessenger POP-UPS
      ... >UPD ports and my firewall isn't that granular. ... >or filter out requests - to block the SPAM POPUPS. ... details of the packet - AND to drop the packet IF it was ...
      (microsoft.public.inetserver.iis.security)
    • Re: Security reasons to block hotbar.com ?
      ... I don't care how much kaaza, aim or others like to ... > AIM ports, but AIM can use other common ports like TCP 80. ... > firewall logs for a week or so to see which ports are being used. ... what would be the best way to block spyware? ...
      (microsoft.public.security)
    • Re: Router vs. desktop firewall
      ... I have one Linux box as NAT firewall, ... > built-in firewall in WinXP results in some ports stealthing, ... drop the packet without further action, ... In the ideal LAN, there shouldn't be a need for multiple firewalls. ...
      (comp.security.misc)
    • Re: port numbers need
      ... and/or packet filtering technology allows for such a thing. ... > Just for my own info. Wouldn't WU return connection be one of the ports ... In this case the only way to get a return behind a firewall even ...
      (microsoft.public.win2000.security)
    • Quantcast